Print Report

A3232 Liquidambar styraciflua - Celtis laevigata - Quercus nigra Ruderal Forest Alliance

Type Concept Sentence: This alliance includes a variety of semi-natural disturbance-related upland forests of the southeastern U.S. dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus nigra, Celtis laevigata, and other hardwoods. These forests tend to develop after logging or agricultural cropping.

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Sweetgum - Sugarberry - Water Oak Ruderal Forest Alliance

Colloquial Name: Ruderal Sweetgum - Sugarberry - Water Oak Forest

Hierarchy Level:  Alliance

Type Concept: This alliance includes a variety of semi-natural disturbance-related upland forests of the southeastern United States dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus nigra, Celtis laevigata, and other hardwoods. These forests tend to develop after logging or agricultural cropping. Some associations may have Carya tomentosa, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus phellos, and Quercus velutina. In addition, Pinus taeda may be present and abundant. Celtis laevigata semi-natural stands occur in highly disturbed soils in coastal areas of Georgia and possibly adjacent states. Celtis laevigata is the strong canopy dominant in this community. However, exotic tree species such as Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, and Morus alba may be scattered throughout. Ground cover species are variable but may include Rubus trivialis and Nekemias arborea.

Diagnostic Characteristics: Stands are found in the uplands and dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus nigra, Celtis laevigata (>50%) or, if >25%, with a mix of other generalist tree species, including other hardwoods, such as Carya tomentosa, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus phellos, and Quercus velutina, or the conifer Pinus taeda.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: Quercus laevis and Crataegus flava stands formerly included here have been removed. They are strongly dominated by Quercus laevis and are mostly (or possibly entirely) the result of the removal and reproductive failure of Pinus palustris. This includes modified and/or fire-suppressed examples of Pinus palustris - Quercus spp.-dominated vegetation, where Pinus palustris has been removed and/or failed to regenerate due to fire suppression or other environmental modifications, including turpentining and logging. Canopy closure of fire-suppressed examples may exceed 60%. The relative density and diversity of the shrub and herb layers will vary with degree of fire suppression; the local expression will vary with latitude and the distributions of various shrub and herbaceous components, as well as with soil texture. It may be that these sites are better treated (at least from a conservation or restoration perspective) as lower quality (but often highly restorable) examples of various communities in the former Pinus palustris / Quercus spp. Woodland Alliance (A.499).

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: Stands are primarily dominated by broad-leaved deciduous hardwood trees.

Floristics: This alliance includes a variety of semi-natural disturbance-related upland forests dominated by Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus nigra, Celtis laevigata, and other hardwoods. Some associations may have Carya tomentosa (= Carya alba), Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus phellos, and Quercus velutina. In addition, Pinus taeda may be present and abundant. Celtis laevigata semi-natural stands occur in highly disturbed soils in coastal areas of Georgia and possibly adjacent states. Celtis laevigata is the strong canopy dominant in this community. However, exotic tree species such as Melia azedarach, Triadica sebifera, and Morus alba may be scattered throughout. Ground cover species are variable but may include Rubus trivialis and Nekemias arborea (= Ampelopsis arborea).

Dynamics:  These forests tend to develop after logging or agricultural cropping.
Environmental Description:  These forests tend to develop after logging or agricultural cropping.
Geographic Range: This alliance is distributed throughout the southeastern United States in most physiographic provinces, ranging from Maryland to Florida and west to Arkansas and possibly Texas.

Nations: US

States/Provinces:  AL, AR, DC?, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, NJ, OK, SC, TN, TX?, VA


Confidence Level: Low - Poorly Documented

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNA

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 1 Forest & Woodland Class C01 1
Subclass 1.B Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland Subclass S15 1.B
Formation 1.B.1 Warm Temperate Forest & Woodland Formation F018 1.B.1
Division 1.B.1.Na Southeastern North American Forest & Woodland Division D006 1.B.1.Na
Macrogroup 1.B.1.Na.90 Sweetgum - Loblolly Pine - Chinese Tallow Ruderal Forest Macrogroup M305 1.B.1.Na.90
Group 1.B.1.Na.90.a Loblolly Pine - Sweetgum - Chinese Tallow Ruderal Forest Group G031 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Alliance A3232 Sweetgum - Sugarberry - Water Oak Ruderal Forest Alliance A3232 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL004638 Water Oak Ruderal Forest CEGL004638 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL004854 Sugarberry Coastal Plain Ruderal Forest CEGL004854 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL007021 Darlington Oak / Greenbrier species Ruderal Forest CEGL007021 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL007216 Sweetgum Ruderal Forest CEGL007216 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL007217 Sweetgum - (White Oak, Southern Red Oak) Ruderal Forest CEGL007217 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Association CEGL007726 Sweetgum - Water Oak - Loblolly Pine / Elliott''s Blueberry - Wax-myrtle Ruderal Forest CEGL007726 1.B.1.Na.90.a
Concept Lineage: parts of A.226, A.234, A.247, A.617

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: No Data Available
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen, in Faber-Langendoen et al. (2013)

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 12-30-15
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Drake, M. Hall, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, M. Russo, K. Schulz, L. Sneddon, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2013-2019b. Screening alliances for induction into the U.S. National Vegetation Classification: Part 1 - Alliance concept review. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.